Kind of Blue - Mostly Other People Do the Killing

[Hot Ptah]

For my Part, no disdain, but I wonder if conceptually it works in the same manner as in the visual arts. As a consumer, why would anyone buy this album when they can get the original?

Well, one can ask the same question about many of the recordings of the jazz repertory movement of the past 25 years, in my opinion. Why should one ever listen to recreations of old music done not quite as well as the originals, by today's musicians?

Some of those jazz repertory efforts have strayed from note by note recreations of the originals, but I wonder if some of them are not closer to the originals only due to lack of time for rehearsal, or lack of skill or effort or planning, by the musicians and/or producers involved. Then when the repertory performance comes off as a bit sloppy, one can fall back on--"it's a personalized jazz interpretation"-- to mask the lack of success of the repertory effort.

I wonder if Mostly Others...differs from those other repertory efforts in the long time they have planned this recording and the greater degree of care they have taken to make it a genuine repertory effort.

[Teasing the Korean]

Also, it hit me that Kind of Blue seems to get reissued every few years in new packaging at varying degrees of higher or lower pricing--but rarely with anything added to a listener's experience of the album. That has struck me more than once as rather ridiculous, a blatant commercialized mining of the gold so many times that one wonders when the mine will finally be played out. So this new album by Mostly Others...could be viewed as a comment on how the unceasing marketing and reissuing of the album has turned it into a commodity, an object, which is fair game for any treatment or handling.

That is interesting. I'm guessing that at least part of the reason that they chose this album is it is one of the few straight-ahead jazz albums that large enough numbers of the general public would own, allowing for comparison and recognition on a fairly large scale for a jazz album.

[ejp626]

For my Part, no disdain, but I wonder if conceptually it works in the same manner as in the visual arts. As a consumer, why would anyone buy this album when they can get the original?

Well, one can ask the same question about many of the recordings of the jazz repertory movement of the past 25 years, in my opinion. Why should one ever listen to recreations of old music done not quite as well as the originals, by today's musicians?

We can certainly ask that. I consider it a waste of time to go to something like that. This project strikes me as navel gazing of the absolute worst kind.

[David Ayers]

Well, maybe the first thing to get hold of is that imitating what musicians have done on record is an integral part of learning to play rock or jazz. It is a way to learn the exact techniques of the greats down to every detail. Every jazz musician has done this.

Second, they told me in Nashville of a local band that weekly plays a classic and beloved rock album note for note. Those who have heard them claim that they are better than the originals, though the same, note for note. There may be more than the - evidently super-disciplined - band I was told of that does this, which shows that album imitation is an established practice, and leads to the third point -

That as well as the exercise in discipline that is involved in this form of exact imitation, there is an extraordinary effect for the listener, for with KoB, as with the classic albums the rock band in Nashville imitates, the listener may well already know every note. So as audiophiles notice differences between versions of KoB based on the fact they can remember many or all of the details, listeners familiar with KoB - to whatever degree - will have an extraordinarily uncanny experience, because NOTHING WILL ACTUALLY BE THE SAME. But then of course, on repetition, it will be the same as itself. But will it sound the same? and how will it impact on the auditor's memory of the original? for some it may well be the original.

This is the chain of considerations that we need to take into account if we want to think about what this is. Really, it is not what it is, and that entrains a series of thoughts about what it means for music to be basically a reproductive art, one in which technological reproduction has supervened on the artisanal.

I think it is that experience of non-identity in identity - that is the key really to what and how this album is.

[Larry Kart]

^{Your mention of Supersax is very interesting. From what I recall, Supersax was viewed positively for the most part. So what is the real difference?}

^{Also, I heard a concert about fifteen years ago, in which David Baker conducted the Smithsonian Jazz Orchestra in note for note recreations of many of Duke Ellington's classic recordings. David Baker commented that the musicians were playing note for note transcriptions of the original recordings. Of course, this group could not capture the personality of the original Ellington soloists. I recall no critical controversy about this tour. The audience seemed to be delighted by the performance, as I recall. (What really struck me about the concert was how inattentive some of the musicians seemed to be, as they were playing. It hit me--this music seems very easy to them).}

One key difference between Supersax and Mostly Other People do the Killing's KOB is that in the former Parker's solos were arranged for a saxophone section, not played by a single alto saxophonist trying to sound just like Parker. Yes, Supersax played Parker's recorded solos note for note, but again the sound of the sax section and the original Parker recordings were quite different from each other. (BTW, the tradition of arranging Parker solos for sax section goes way back; the first attempt IIRC was on Woody Herman's "I've Got News For You," c. 1947-8, where Shorty Rogers arranged Parker's solo on "Dark Shadows" for the Herman saxes.) Further, in person and on some of Supersax's recordings, there also were original solos by the likes of Conte Candoli, Frank Rosolino, Carl Fontana, and Warne Marsh. Finally, Supersax neither intended to evoke nor IIRC did evoke any of the conceptual "Pierre Menard" hoo-haw that Mostly Other People do the Killing has in mind.

As for the David Baker re-creative SJO performances, and similar attempts by other ensembles (e.g. a British recording some years back, under the leadership of Alan Cohen, of "Black Brown and Beige"), my feeling is that if done well they may be worth hearing in a concert setting, but on a recording they would be redundant because we have the Ellington originals. That is, in a concert something of value could be added in terms of immediacy of experience; on a recording that value, such as it might have been, would evaporate. (Actually, at the time of the Cohen recording, the complete original score of BBB had not been recorded, only excerpts, and that was the justification for Cohen's attempt.)

[Daniel A]

I find this project interesting, even if I'm still uncertain I'll buy the actual album. If they managed to copy the original playing to the point that there was no discernible difference at all it would be pointless. However, since that is impossible, they will leave their imprint on the music and I would be interested in hearing in what way.

[Guy Berger]

I have to raise this point, as controversial as it may be. I wonder if this exact same album. literally the exact same music, would have created controversy if it had been recorded by a group of black men, ages 75-85, who presented it as a reverent tribute to the great Miles Davis, and who called their group "We Love Miles."

I wonder if this album is controversial partly because it has been recorded by a bunch of white and Asian musicians, who are young, with no track record of paying their dues in the usual way (the Jazz Messengers, Miles and his sidemen's groups, etc. ), and who have used goofy, irreverent humor in their album titles, liner notes and designs.

This is not a coincidence - it's a key feature of the project. (Again, anticipated by JL Borges.)

Brian Eno:

When you listen to Miles Davis, how much of what you hear is music, and how much is context? Another way of saying that is, 'What would you be hearing if you didn't know you were listening to Miles Davis?' I think of context as everything that isn't physically contained in the grooves of the record, and in his case that seems quite a lot. It includes your knowledge, first of all, that everyone else says he's great: that must modify the way you hear him. But it also includes a host of other strands: that he was a handsome and imposing man, a member of a romantic minority, that he played with Charlie Parker, that he spans generations, that he underwent various addictions, that he married Cicely Tyson, that he dressed well, that Jean-Luc Godard liked him, that he wore shades and was very cool, that he himself said little about his work, and so on. Surely all that affects how you hear him: I mean, could it possibly have felt the same if he'd been an overweight heating engineer from Oslo? When you listen to music, Aren't you also 'listening' to all the stuff around it, too? How important is that to the experience you' re having, and is it differently important with different musics, different artists?

[Larry Kart]

Speaking of coincidences, there is a new recording of "Filles de Kilimanjaro" on the way from an overweight heating engineer from Oslo, liner notes by Borges' grandson's proctologist.

[LouisvillePrez]

Well, maybe the first thing to get hold of is that imitating what musicians have done on record is an integral part of learning to play rock or jazz. It is a way to learn the exact techniques of the greats down to every detail. Every jazz musician has done this.

Second, they told me in Nashville of a local band that weekly plays a classic and beloved rock album note for note. Those who have heard them claim that they are better than the originals, though the same, note for note. There may be more than the - evidently super-disciplined - band I was told of that does this, which shows that album imitation is an established practice, and leads to the third point -

That as well as the exercise in discipline that is involved in this form of exact imitation, there is an extraordinary effect for the listener, for with KoB, as with the classic albums the rock band in Nashville imitates, the listener may well already know every note. So as audiophiles notice differences between versions of KoB based on the fact they can remember many or all of the details, listeners familiar with KoB - to whatever degree - will have an extraordinarily uncanny experience, because NOTHING WILL ACTUALLY BE THE SAME. But then of course, on repetition, it will be the same as itself. But will it sound the same? and how will it impact on the auditor's memory of the original? for some it may well be the original.

This is the chain of considerations that we need to take into account if we want to think about what this is. Really, it is not what it is, and that entrains a series of thoughts about what it means for music to be basically a reproductive art, one in which technological reproduction has supervened on the artisanal.

I think it is that experience of non-identity in identity - that is the key really to what and how this album is.

I have heard the band from Nashville -- The Long Players -- numerous times. They are a collective of great Nashville musicians. They really are doing tributes to the albums. They play classic LPs start to finish and try to retain, to some extent, the original sound, but what makes their shows most interesting is how they work in guest artists to sing and perform along with themselves. My first LP show was Blonde on Blonde, done as a fundraiser for the drummer on the album. Al Kooper was in town, and he sat in on organ and sang "Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat." All of the guest vocalists took a turn with the verses of "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands." Then they did "Like A Rolling Stone" as an encore (awesome). When they did the White Album, they did not attempt to do "Revelation 9" as it is on the album or otherwise (whether they would was the question on my mind before the show). Instead, a whole other band -- one with Lennon-esque qualities -- came out and did a song "inspired" by "Revolution 9."

About the MOPDTK album, they could get more press than ever before because of this. I am not trying to say that it's all a marketing gimmick, but it might get more people to check out the back catalog. Also, when Clark Terry did Porgy & Bess a while back, I totally loved it. If MOPDTK have done something that has its own voice, while still remaining rather close to the earlier Miles work, I could be interested. I would like to know more about just how much of a "copy" it is.

[Steve Reynolds]

I will buy it just to hear it.

I would rather hear them play the 5 tunes live in order with a second saxophonist playing the alto or tenor (whichever horn Irabagon wouldn't play). To hear Peter Evans take the music on on the spot would be much more exciting. Of course he is now no longer in the band - plus I doubt they ever intended to play it live one take.

I've (surprisingly I guess) never heard the band on record or in person although I've heard Evans and Irabagon live and on records. Both horn players are very talented and have a very wide range of abilities.

[Hot Ptah]

I have been thinking about this album some more, but what I have been mostly thinking about are the reactions which have been printed not only here, but also on other online sources. I am surprised by the number of writings about how Mostly Others... should not have recorded this album, that it was unacceptable or wrong of them to do so.

To me, that reaction is unique to jazz. I can't imagine country or rock writers and musicians turning on one of their own and writing that another artist in their genre could not and should not record an album that the artist wanted to record. It would seem ridiculous for them to do so. But in jazz, an all out attack on Mostly Others... is seen as just another thing that jazz writers and musicians do.

Is jazz so fragile, so precious, that it has to be protected like a piece of delicate fine crystal on display in a case? What ever happened to robust, controversial exploration in all areas in jazz, some not successful perhaps but with the spirit of adventure applauded? What happened to jazz musicians forging ahead regardless of orthodoxy and doing what they wanted to do, and being appreciated for that? How do we KNOW that Mostly Others... is not embarked on a creative career of distinction, with this album as one step in a lifetime of experimentation? Why do we have to jump all over them like a strict schoolmarm rapping their knuckles with a ruler?

[Big Beat Steve]

Strange ... Hot Ptah, you know, even before you wrote your post I was half expecting this sort of reaction that you described and I have a hunch why ...

Anybody remember that TIME LIFE box set series of the "Swing Era"? It is a well-known "secret" that those big band recordings in that (admittedly nicely produced) box set were NOT the original recordings but note-by-note re-recordings done specifically for this box set project (by Billy May and Glen Gray).

Apparently the recordings sounded close enough to the originals (I don't really go for this kind of copying either and had the most important original recordings anyway so never grabbed a copy - despite the interesting booklets - though several affordable secondhand ones crossed my path during the years) and strangely enough I have often read praise of this box set (even on jazz forums, including this one, I do seem to remember). And many dwelt on the improved fidelity, better sound, etc. but hardly anyone faulted the set for the recordings NOT being the original ones but rehashes and carbon copies of the "real thing".

Could it be that even some jazz aficionados will embrace copying such as on that TIME LIFE set, including because "fidelity" is OH so improved .... making the recordings OH so more listenable ... and the fact that these just are NOT the real thing is shrugged off as immaterial (after all "it's only them big bands so why care?").

Whereas in the case of KOB jazz fans cry out loud. Why? Is this sort of "tampering" with KOB close enough to being SACRILEGIOUS, I wonder? Is KOB really on that high a pedestal? Which would explain the reactions you describe: "unacceptable" "wrong" and whatnot ...

Note that I do understand those who do not like this kind of copycat practice, and I am not particularly keen on it either, but I am not keen on it anywhere and find it pointless. Not because KOB might be some commodity particularly worthy of protection beyond all others. That TIME-LIFE practice bugged me too.

BTW, neither do I particularly care for that 50s practice of re-recording ONE'S OWN recordings just because some A&R people want to jump on the stereo bandwagon (cf. June Christy's "Something Cool" album for Capitol, and no doubt many others). Looks (or rather, sounds ) rather gimmicky to me too.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Big Beat Steve

[Steve Reynolds]

I have been thinking about this album some more, but what I have been mostly thinking about are the reactions which have been printed not only here, but also on other online sources. I am surprised by the number of writings about how Mostly Others... should not have recorded this album, that it was unacceptable or wrong of them to do so.

To me, that reaction is unique to jazz. I can't imagine country or rock writers and musicians turning on one of their own and writing that another artist in their genre could not and should not record an album that the artist wanted to record. It would seem ridiculous for them to do so. But in jazz, an all out attack on Mostly Others... is seen as just another thing that jazz writers and musicians do.

Is jazz so fragile, so precious, that it has to be protected like a piece of delicate fine crystal on display in a case? What ever happened to robust, controversial exploration in all areas in jazz, some not successful perhaps but with the spirit of adventure applauded? What happened to jazz musicians forging ahead regardless of orthodoxy and doing what they wanted to do, and being appreciated for that? How do we KNOW that Mostly Others... is not embarked on a creative career of distinction, with this album as one step in a lifetime of experimentation? Why do we have to jump all over them like a strict schoolmarm rapping their knuckles with a ruler?

Nice post. Yes I saw some reference(s) above claiming that some question the "rite to play" or "rite to perform" this or "45 minutes of cacophony" as if there is someone saying they should NOT play or record what they want to record or perform.

They or others may get grief for recording this. Certainly many here who might refer to or describe an incredible 45 minute free improvisation as "45 minutes of cacophony" has an axe or many axes to grind regarding music they don't like.

So a passive aggressive insult works better for some, I gather

And NO, I will keep up my enthusiasm for current day improvisation being recorded and played live by modern day master musicians/improvisors.

And no one is negating anyone's "rite" to not be moved by avant-garde forms of jazz, but calling it negative inaccurate names is simply an ignorant half-assed put down.

[Big Beat Steve]

Certainly many here who might refer to or describe an incredible 45 minute free improvisation as "45 minutes of cacophony" has an axe or many axes to grind regarding music they don't like.

So a passive aggressive insult works better for some, I gather

And NO, I will keep up my enthusiasm for current day improvisation being recorded and played live by modern day master musicians/improvisors.

And no one is negating anyone's "rite" to not be moved by avant-garde forms of jazz, but calling it negative inaccurate names is simply an ignorant half-assed put down.

In case you were alluding to my earlier post ... note I always put that "cacophony" in quotation marks to show that this is not an "objective" or lasting judgment of the music by any means.

Anybody is free to embrace free jazz and avantgarde as much as they like - the only thing that bugs ME in debates centering around this form of jazz is that there a a bit too many for my taste (sometimes here but often elsewhere too wherever free jazz is/was written about) who proceed on their own conviction of "if you do not like free jazz you ain't seen the light, you ain't with it, you ain't getting the JAZZ message, you are old hat, you are missing the boat, you don't understand 'JAZZ' " etc. etc. .

Which is something I find all wrong because those who "argue" like that seem to believe the evolution of jazz occurs in a LINEAR manner from the simple to the ever more complex and "far out". Whereas in fact jazz has always branched in all imaginable directions, sometimes in a fairly straight way, often rather twisted, sometimes even in circles, etc. But certainly not in a linear pattern that knows only ONE direction of evolution - and certainly not an evolution linked to any sort of automatic artistic superiority. An if some (like me, admittedly ) prefer not to get out too far on certain limbs of that tree of jazz then isn't this just as valid as the actions of those who like to sit out there on those limbs (and you, for example, do not wish to climb certain OTHER limbs of that tree either, isn't it?)

But that's a totally different debate IMO.

EXCEPT in the event that some possible sense of superiority should creep into the debate surrounding such note-for-note copying projects - such as hinted at in my above post: copying KOB note by note is heresy (?), copying the big bands note by note - ah, couldn't care less ...

Finally, just to get this straight (in case I did not manage to get this across in my above posts):

If somebody wants to copy some previous recording note by note and "reenact" it that way (i.e. not in the sense of Supersax or Lambert-Hendricks-Ross reworking previously redforded solos) - OK, go ahead and enjoy yourself. No doubt there will be an audience for it. I am not overly moved by this kind of copying project but that's only me ... and tastes differ, so to each his own.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Big Beat Steve

[clifford_thornton]

what does free jazz have to do with MOPDTK's Blue (other than the fact that those guys have played it to varying degrees) ?

I think it's pretty clearly not Miles' music, nor will it ever be.

I think the point about copying solos is fairly right-on, and I think that studying KOB as a commodity is even more right on. Also, there is the fact that most new jazz recordings are held up to the standard that records like KOB have set. In that case, might as well try and make KOB, right?

Kevin I know pretty well, and am acquainted with Jon and Peter. I don't know Moppa or Ron personally. They are all bright guys and pretty sincere musicians, so this release is far from merely a publicity grab (though obviously it would get publicity I think everybody's surprised at the sheer amount). Ballsy move for sure.

Just remember that the Jimmy Cobb impression is done by this guy:

[xybert]

My thoughts in a nutshell:

- I think there is a gag/publicity stunt element to it, whether they acknowledge it or are even conscious of it, and that's fine.

- This is an attempt to replicate the original as precisely as possible. It's nothing like a traditional cover version or a tribute or whatever. No one will mistake Supersax for Bird.

- It gets interesting because although they are trying to replicate the original as perfectly as possible, it's impossible for so many of the reasons that they themselves have noted (everything from their race to what they had for breakfast that morning and you can go on endlessly about 'the environment' and all that entails from the year to the weather to the type of etc).

- This project provides a lot of food for thought.

- I don't think that anyone will be throwing out their copy of Miles' KOB, nor is that the intention. Although again, it's funny to think about it from that angle, it adds to the comedy value of the project. They should market it they way, a photo of a smarmy yuppy marvelling at this new and improved version. It's funny to think of a bunch of dudes setting out with that as their intention.

- I have a massive soft spot for the shot-for-shot Psycho remake, although i don't think anyone would confuse Vince Vaughn for Anthony Perkins.

- I'm not a fan of MOPDTK at all, just haven't been able to get in to their music in any lasting way, but i'm definitely interested to hear Blue at least once.

[B. Clugston]

Ethan Iverson has written a blog post about the kinda Kind of Blue. http://dothemath.typepad.com/dtm/2014/10/classical-music.html

[David Ayers]

Iverson is spot on re. conceptual art.

[Leeway]

Icons need iconoclasts. The Mona Lisa, encased behind glass barriers, needs the mustache painter, to remind us that art is human.

KOB needs MOPDTK to remind us that this is music made by people. MOPDTK has done KOB a favor. MOPDTK has drawn a tiny little mustache on KOB. Personally, I would have preferred that, like any bona-fide iconoclast, they took an axe to it, free-jazzed the hell out of it, put on a huge mustache and goatee, to remind us that change is inevitable, that nothing should be held immutable.

And, btw, is that really the Mona Lisa in the Louvre? Or just a paint by number (almost note by note) reproduction?

[ejp626]

They have the "right" to do it, but it seems totally pointless (only slightly less so than the silly remake of Psycho) any why any record company would think it merits release (rather than just being a live affair) is beyond me.

What I wouldn't have a problem with is if they remade it in a free-jazz way or changed the meter or anything that showed any originality at all.

[JSngry]

When it komes to "Kind Of" kopies, make mine Bloopy!

Past that, people need to get over Kind Of Blue. Cut the fucking cord already, that kid's already grown up, had kids of its own, and done died an honorable death.

[David Ayers]

This has to be seen as a human venture, not as product manufacture, although product manufacture is part of its concept. It's an enormous challenge! And people will stare at this like watching Houdini trying to escape from a shark tank!

[Big Beat Steve]

Leeway and ejp626 sum up nicely the core the problem, IMO. Iconoclasm is a very apt keyword.

Use the material in full and make something new out of it would be fine - such as the John Kirby Sextet jazzing up the classics, which created reactions of shock in their day too, or cool jazz musicians playing Jelly Roll Morton, or whatever happened in jazz through the decades in that vein.

But trying a note-for-note carbon copy of the original sounds like rather a gimmicky approach (but one that will certainly get them headlines), and to me that is a bit too much like that TIME-LIFE approach e.g. of "the Jimmy Lunceford recording of "XXXXX" (now comes the fine print) as played by Billy May". Though no doubt it might make for a nice one-off experience when heard live on stage.

Though I wonder what the reactions of Miles/KOB lovers would have been if this ..

"Personally, I would have preferred that, like any bona-fide iconoclast, they took an axe to it, free-jazzed the hell out of it, put on a huge mustache and goatee, to remind us that change is inevitable, that nothing should be held immutable."

... had really happened.

[jazzbo]

Listening to this right now. Fascinating. It's very different, while being quite the same. An experience slightly different than I anticipated.

[Teasing the Korean]

Past that, people need to get over Kind Of Blue. Cut the fucking cord already, that kid's already grown up, had kids of its own, and done died an honorable death.

The fact that people have not gotten over it is the very thing that allowed a project like this to happen.

How many jazz albums are there that are well known enough to allow a casual listener to even recognize that they are hearing the same solo?

If "Kind of Blue" never existed, they would have chosen whatever album ascended to that stature. Recognition is the whole point of the exercise.